Assesses industrial policy in Asia-Pacific, revealing implications for structural transformation.
This paper provides a first comprehensive assessment of industrial policy (IP) across Asia‑Pacific and its potential to enable structural transformation. Building an IP database for 2009–2024, paired with a rich dataset, the paper documents a large wave of IP interventions. Subsidies dominate, followed by import-limiting measures. Novel applications of machine‑learning and clustering approaches to assess IP targeting suggest that, ex-ante, about three-quarters of IP could align with structural transformation strategies, including relatively safe (“safe-bets”) and risky (“moonshots”) strategies promoting technological upgrading and diversification, and strategies to alleviate market‑frictions and distortions in key sectoral nodes. IP’s ex-post linkages to trade, competitiveness, and domestic firms’ indicators are small and short‑lived; sustained gains that could lead into structural transformation appear only sporadically. Our findings underscore the need for a more parsimonious and carefully‑designed IP—anchored to targeting clear market‑failure rationales and complemented by ambitious structural reforms—potentially enhancing effectiveness and lowering net costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arias et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: